On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Leszek Ciesielski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> in a long overdue followup to my previous email, I am sending a patch
> that modifies the result of running 'df' against a btrfs volume. I
> understand that, give the simplicity of 'df', there is not 'correct'
> solution - I do th
Hi,
in a long overdue followup to my previous email, I am sending a patch
that modifies the result of running 'df' against a btrfs volume. I
understand that, give the simplicity of 'df', there is not 'correct'
solution - I do think however, that the changed output is more
intuitive. Most important
Leszek Ciesielski wrote:
Hi,
the results of running 'df' against a btrfs volume are somewhat
unintuitive from a user point of view. On a single drive btrfs volume,
created with 'mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d raid1 /dev/sda6', I am getting
the following result:
/dev/sda6 1.4T 594G 804G 4
Hi,
the results of running 'df' against a btrfs volume are somewhat
unintuitive from a user point of view. On a single drive btrfs volume,
created with 'mkfs.btrfs -m raid1 -d raid1 /dev/sda6', I am getting
the following result:
/dev/sda6 1.4T 594G 804G 43% /mnt
while 'btrfs-show'
